|
The explanation by lesser angle of vision has been elsewhere
dismissed; one point, however, we may urge here.
Those attributing the reduced appearance to the lesser angle
occupied allow by their very theory that the unoccupied portion
of the eye still sees something beyond or something quite apart
from the object of vision, if only air-space.
Now consider some very large object of vision, that mountain for
example. No part of the eye is unoccupied; the mountain
adequately fills it so that it can take in nothing beyond, for
the mountain as seen either corresponds exactly to the eye-space
or stretches away out of range to right and to left. How does the
explanation by lesser angle of vision hold good in this case,
where the object still appears smaller, far, than it is and yet
occupies the eye entire?
Or look up to the sky and no hesitation can remain. Of course we
cannot take in the entire hemisphere at one glance; the eye
directed to it could not cover so vast an expanse. But suppose
the possibility: the entire eye, then, embraces the hemisphere
entire; but the expanse of the heavens is far greater than it
appears; how can its appearing far less than it is be explained
by a lessening of the angle of vision?
|
|